500 Days of Summer - Essay

Hollywood is the most popular and respected film industry around the world. It has many variations of film. But it was studied intensely in the 1970s, when the first French and then British and American film theorists began applying psychoanalysis to film in an attempt to discuss the spectator-screen relationship. As well as the textual relationships within the films, this essay focuses on theorists like Laura Mulvey, E.A Kaplan and Linda Williams. Theorist Laura Mulvey (1975) believed that the world of cinema is dominated by men, therefore women are on screen only for visual pleasure. She debated by demonstrating the domination of the male gaze, within and without the screen, at the expense of the woman's; so much so that the female spectator had little to gaze upon or identify with. Her theory was challenged by theorist E. Ann Kaplan (1983), who believed that in mainstream Hollywood cinema, it is men on the whole who can act on the desiring gaze. She debated that the spectator has to make a conscious effort, in order to feel aligned with the female character on screen. Both Mulvey's and Kaplan's theories were explored further by theorist Linda Williams (1984) who believed that when the woman is powerful with the dominant gaze, the woman's gaze is punished. She will have to pay for it with her life if she's dominant. Thus, the spectator usually would not want to align with the on screen female character as she suffers. These theories have been explored in Marc Webb's Romantic-comedy, 500 Days of Summer (2009). It is about a woman, Summer, who doesn't believe true love exists, and the young man, Tom, who falls for her. The short outline of the story gives away the exploration, and automatically supports Mulvey's theory. The young man, Tom falls for her, therefore, this tells the audience that they will be watching the "man" who will be desiring the "woman"; does he get her or not? This is what drives the story of the film.

Theorist, Laura Mulvey argued that women are on screen for the visual pleasure of men as films are made for men to watch, by the male dominant industry. Whether the person is a writer, producer or director, all these jobs are handled by mostly by men. Therefore, Mulvey invented the term Male Gaze, which means that the audience (male or female) are looking at the woman on screen, through the eyes of the male character on screen. The man is always the subject who desires the woman, the object. Thus, the audience and the spectators see, feel and align with the male character on screen. This is very clearly explored in Tom's imaginative and descriptive scene, on Summer. Tom's yearning for Summer is very clear when he lists the "perfect" Summer. He thinks about her appearance and lists her body parts and her smile. While he describes her, we are shown his thoughts, where the camera (cinematography), shows close-ups of her breasts, knees and smile, which makes the scene sexualised. Hence it makes Summer a visual pleasure for male spectators watching her. However, as the film is from Tom's perspective, the audience (male or female) align with Tom and see it as pleasure as well. But this scene can also be taken as either preferred reading or negotiated reading, depending on how the spectator feels while visualising this scene. The same scene is repeated later in the film, however this time Tom disapproves her beauty and calls her breasts, knees and smile ugly. Again, the audience align with Tom as the objectified woman he desires, is being seen negatively by him, followed by the audience. However, as she's sexualised exactly like the previous desirable scene, some male spectators may not agree and align with Tom. As they might see her attractive the way they did before. This depends on the negotiated and preferred readings, yet again and on how the spectator views the scene and who they align with. Is it the subject (Tom) or the object (Summer), who is defenceless, as she cannot do anything about the way she's being desired and looked at? This then links with E.A Kaplan's theory on the submissive gaze and alignment.

Kaplan had argued that women are not active but are submissive. They are objectified on screen, and it is the spectator who has to align with the female character consciously, in order to understand them and not just see them as objects on screen. In 500 Days of Summer, Kaplan's theory is explored during the expectation versus reality scene. As we know what Tom is desiring, however we are unaware of Summer's thoughts and feelings. The scene deliberately makes the audience feel aligned with Tom, as the screen is split in half, with "expectation" and "reality" written underneath the screens that are being portrayed. Because as the audience we know what Tom is thinking and feeling, we automatically feel for him and align with him. We feel distressed the way Tom does and does not think about Summers thoughts and feelings. On the other hand, it is the spectator who will consciously make the decision of aligning with Summer, and try to understand how Summer must be feeling, during Tom's expectation versus reality scene. This could possibly depend on the oppositional reading, and how the male/female spectators view the scene from their perspective.  Another scene that exemplifies Kaplan's theory is after Tom and Summer have consummated, and Tom exits the streets, while dancing. This particular scene is centred around him, as he celebrates his 'conquer of Summer' and his masculinity. Following Kaplan's theory, it is very clearly shown that Summer is not active in this celebration, which leads the spectators to consciously question how she feels about the current situation. However, Tom is portrayed very feminine in this scene, with him dancing and singing away, while imaging the Disney animations. But he has phallic objects (fountain), around him, to make the audience celebrate along with him. Yet, the sense of femininity within the scene, consciously makes the spectators think about Summer, and what her thoughts may be.

Webb's 500 Days of Summer, also explores theorist, Linda Williams' theory, who argued that when women have the dominant gaze in films, they are often punished because of their "active gaze". Therefore, the spectator does not align with the dominant female, because she suffers. Throughout the film Summer is shown to have more power over Tom, thus, this challenges Williams' theory instead of supporting it, as Summer has a fairytale ending by the finale of the film. Another example of Summer's power is explored, when she describes herself as 'Sid' and Tom as 'Nancy'. By doing this, she reverses the typical male and female roles, as she makes herself dominant by comparing herself to a male complexion. Therefore, Tom is left being seen as the 'damsel' character, who sobs when he doesn't get what he desires. This is because of his fragile femininity and desire for love. But, Summer is still 'punished', in terms of response. The audience aligns with Tom throughout the whole film, which leaves us disliking her character because we feel the way Tom feels. The reason being for this is the film being shown through Tom's point of view, which again links with Kaplan's theory. This is up to the spectator to consciously make the decision of aligning with the female character (Summer), and understanding her point of view. Through this, not everyone in the audience will feel completely aligned with Tom, and dislike Summer.

Overall, the three theorists and their theories have a strong point while challenging and debating each other's theories. All three theories are significant, however Laura Mulvey's Male gaze and Kaplan's Submissive gaze theories seems to be the two dominant theories used throughout 500 Days of Summer. Evidently because the whole film is from Tom's perspective, the audience are deliberately forced to feel the way Tom does. However since the film is a central imagining film, it has purposeful use of micro elements to incite feelings for the spectator. This is why the film is seen through the eyes of Tom.

Theorists and 500 Days of Summer

https://prezi.com/bovrfgopbb_6/theorists-and-500-days-of-summer/#

How is the spectator affected in 'Clockwork Orange?'

In 'A Clockwork Orange' directed by Stanley Kubrick, the spectator is affected by being forced to align with the central character Alex, a mentally deranged sociopath. Throughout the film, the spectator watches scenes of Alex performing and enjoying acts of violence and rape. However, Alex is positioned in the film as the narrator in a linear narrative which means that the spectator see the film from his perspective and are compelled to sympathise with him. The film is also visually symbolic of Alex's own disturbed and sociopathic outlook on the world.

In the first twenty minutes of the film, The character Alex is introduced to the spectator along with his gang members, which he calls his droogs. The audience is shown Alex and his droogs physically assaulting an old homeless man, they have a brawl with another similar gang in a old casino, they steal a car and drive recklessly down the countryside causing other cars to crash before finally stopping at a old writer's house where they break in, beat the writer crippling him and rape his wife. Whilst the audience watch the scenes, classical music plays over the top of the scenes, for example Beethoven, which when combined with the film's surreal near future setting make the violence seem stylised and strange. This constant stream of violent images with classical music played over them straight from the start of the movie is metaphorically similar to Alex's Ludovico technique he experiences in the film, where he is subject to violent images whilst strapped into a cinema seat. The positioning of this metaphorical Ludovico treatment for the spectator is to desensitise them, much like how Alex is desensitised to violence because he is a sociopath. Kubrick does this because he wants the spectator to reject an association or any alignment with Alex because he is performing violent acts.

It is not until the second part of the film where Alex's develops a physical aversion for violence or conflict after his Ludovico treatment where we begin to sympathise with him. The film's narrative in the second part is similar to how it was in the first part of the film. Firstly, Alex is thrown out of his home by his parents and their new lodger, he is recognised by the homeless man he beat earlier in the film who take his things and beat him. Then, his former droogs, Georgie and Dim, are revealed to become police officers and drive him to the middle of the woods, where he is nearly drowned. This drowning sequence is similar to how Alex throws them into the water during the first part of the film when they are walking across the marina. In pain, he comes across the old writers home who doesn't recognise him at first but after hearing Alex sing 'Singing in the rain' which was sung during his wife's rape, the writer locks Alex in a room whilst playing 'Beethoven's 9th' through speakers, knowing that as a byproduct of the Ludovico technique, Alex is physically averse to the song. Unable to take anymore, he throws himself out of the window in a attempt to commit suicide. This seemingly karmic sequence of events are an attempt to make the spectator align with Alex and feel sympathy for him, for example, the use of non-diagetic sad music during the scene where he is thrown out by his parents. We also see the writer character taking pleasure in Alex's torment when he is locked in the room, mirroring Alex's own love of violence and Beethoven in the first part of the film.

The drowning scene shows the karmic nature of the film. Alex
has been made 'to suffer when others have suffered.'

Him doing the same thing earlier in the film.

Depending on the spectators own extra-textual experiences, the character Alex is purposely made to be dislikable in the first part of the film, the spectator is supposed to take a oppositional reading into the character of Alex who clearly enjoys violence and rape along with classical music and is depicted as a sociopath with no moral compass. However the second part of the film challenges this oppositional reading of Alex by making the audience feel sympathetic towards him in that he is submitted to the same violent behaviour that he caused to others in the first part of the film.

The film is also visually distinctive in order to portray Alex as the narrator of the film. The film's stylised violence accompanied with the score of classical music shows Alex's fascination with art and sexual violence. This juxtaposition between art and sexual violence is notable in the fight scene in the abandoned shot. The establishing shot of the scene is a mural of flowers on top of the stage before the camera zooms out to show Billy boy's gang raping a woman. Another example is the scene in Alex's bedroom where it is implied he masturbates to the small crucified Jesus figurines, accompanied with Beethoven's 9th symphony and jump cuts to the hands, feet and genitals of the figurines. The use of stock footage further reinforces that Alex is masturbating to violence.

The mis-en-scene of the film is depicted as surreal and over-sexualised. In the very first scene in the Korova milk bar, the tables in the film are white naked woman figurines on four legs. The costumes Alex and his droogs wear costumes that accentuate their groin. The milk dispensers in the bar dispense milk out of a naked figurines nipple. The masks Alex and his droogs wear during the break in are phallic in nature. The lobby of Alex's apartment building has been vandalised with numerous penis drawn onto the mural,showing a further juxtaposition of sex and art. Another example is the two girls that Alex picks up at the record shop and he has a threesome with them in which is stylised because it is filmed in extreme fast forward. The cat lady's house which Alex and his Droogs break into is full of sexual imagery, including a big penis statue that the cat lady is very protective over. When Alex rams the big penis into the cat lady's face killing her, it is followed by a jump cut of a picture of a screaming woman with two sets of teeth. This sets a subtext in the film because it implies that Alex's parents used to abuse him. Alex's mother has a set of false teeth, and this is the reason why Alex has a lock on his bedroom door, to keep a physical barrier between himself and his parents. This is further implied through the scene with Deltoid on the bed where he grabs Alex by the balls, putting him into a similar position to the Korova milk bar tables, implying this is a place where Alex has been sexualised.

In the second part of the film, this violent and sexual imagery is not as noticeable. This is because it shows that Alex has been cured by the Ludovico treatment and that he is physically averse to violence and sexual violence. The use of central and a-central imagining to show the difference between the two parts of the film. For example, the first part of the film features a lot of central imagining. The scene where Alex is drowned by Georgie and Dim features a strange synth noise after every hit from the baton. We also see people getting beaten and women being raped in the first part of the film which is stylised through the use of Beethoven and other classical music used. A example of A-central imagining is when the old writer tortures Alex using the 9th symphony played through speakers. The camera zooms out on his face to reveal his pleasure at the torment accompanied by the classical music. This implies that the old writer has become what Alex in the first part of the film, the same zoom out effect is used similar to the first scene of the film where the camera zooms out on Alex.

the first shot of the film. Establishes Alex as menacing from the get go.

Similar close up. The writer also looks like Beethoven.

It can be implied that after Alex is submitted to the same torture that the Old man is enduring, he recognises himself in his own behaviour and kills himself in guilt or to make the pain stop. This affects the spectator because it makes the film visually different on a sub-conscious level to give Kubrick the affect he wants. He wants the audience to not align with Alex in the first half of the film and then align in sympathy for him in the second half of the film. By taking away the strange and surreal visual imagery that Alex sees during the first half, it makes Alex more associable with the spectator.